Fault lines in Pahalgam investigation

The submission of a 1,597-page charge-sheet by India's National Investigation Agency in the Pahalgam incident, after an unexplained delay of eight months, raises more questions than it answers. The document exposes deep fault lines in the investigation and reinforces a longstanding pattern: the routine attribution of incidents in IIOJK to Pakistan.

Since 1947, New Delhi has worked to recast the indigenous Kashmiri resistance as externally driven militancy. India thus plays a double game — internationalising Kashmir when it suits its narrative, while resisting any external scrutiny of its actions in the disputed territory. The Pahalgam case fits squarely within this familiar pattern.

Despite the length of the charge-sheet, it offers little substance. Six individuals have been named, but the investigation fails to provide clear, independently verifiable evidence linking them either to the incident or to Pakistan. Claims are treated as facts, and assumptions replace proof. After eight months of investigation, this heavy reliance on assertions rather than solid evidence raises serious questions.

Even more concerning is the reliance on alleged confessional statements from three Kashmiri shepherds - poor and vulnerable civilians with little legal protection. There are serious concerns that these confessions were obtained through torture and pressure. Under international legal standards, statements taken in police custody, especially under coercion, have little credibility and are considered weak evidence.

The actions of Indian forces during related search operations further weaken the investigation's credibility. Three civilians were reportedly killed and later presented as Pakistani nationals to suggest a cross-border link. The claim that they carried Pakistani voter identity cards is clearly false, as Pakistan does not issue such IDs.

Similarly, the arrest of Pervaiz Ahmed and Bashir Ahmed on 22 June has been shrouded in opacity. No transparent or public trial has followed. Instead, purported confessions were aired through pro-government Indian media, bypassing judicial process altogether.

Predictably, Indian electronic and social media platforms launched a coordinated campaign against Pakistan immediately after the incident. This rush to assign blame preceded any credible investigation and appeared designed to shape domestic opinion rather than establish facts. Pakistan, for its part, offered a fair, transparent and impartial investigation — an offer that was summarily rejected. The refusal of an independent inquiry speaks volumes about India's confidence in its own claims.

To understand the persistence of such tactics, the Pahalgam case must be situated within the broader historical and legal context of Jammu and Kashmir. The territory remains one of the oldest unresolved disputes on the UNSC agenda.

While New Delhi frequently invokes the Simla Agreement to argue against international involvement, this bilateral accord does not override the Kashmiri people's right to self-determination, nor does it nullify UNSC resolutions. India is not the sovereign owner of Jammu and Kashmir but a party to the dispute, bound by international law. Any unilateral attempt to decide the region's future is, therefore, legally untenable.

India's actions since 5 August 2019 have further aggravated the situation. The unilateral abrogation of Article 370, the dissolution of the region's limited autonomy, and the introduction of sweeping demographic and political changes represent clear violations of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It is against this backdrop of repression, curfews, communications blackouts and arbitrary detentions that incidents like Pahalgam occur — and are then instrumentalised. By externalising blame, India seeks to obscure the root causes of unrest: denial of political rights, systematic human rights violations and the continued refusal to allow Kashmiris a say in their own future.

Thus, the Pahalgam charge-sheet, far from strengthening India's case, underscores the fragility of its claims.